Not exactly. We have to distinguish between the aesthetic and the social/economic aspects of urban development. Planet Hollywood and yuppie boutiques may not be as aesthetically appealing as, say, bohemian art galleries and cafes. Urban malls (such as the Gallery in Baltimore or Galeria in Boston) may be nothing more than a collection of chain stores found in every suburban mall in the country.
But their aesthetic qualities (or lack thereof) notwithstanding, the urban development aka gentrification is different from suburban sprawl in several important respects.
1. Environmental protection. Suburban sprawl almost invariably means destruction of vast natural areas, not just for new homes with large yards, but parking lots and roads. That also means more automobile traffic and more pollution. Gentrification, by contrast takes place in urban areas and oftentimes involves creation of new green areas. Moreover, residential density makes vialble public transportation possible.
2. Public spaces. There are no public spaces in suburban sprawl - everything is private, including shopping malls. Tha means that security guards have every right to kick you out, if they do not lik eyou behavior (e.g. if you distribute Mumia Abu Jamal literature or sell alternative art). City strets, by contrast are public spaces - they can house commercial areas that are open to the public (as opposed to paying customers). Add to that other puboi cspaces, such as plazas, parks, subway stations etc.
3. Public service efficiency. Urban development (aka gentrification) means bringing moderate/high income peopl eto the city, thus adding their income and property taxes to the city budget. That means more money for public services. Moreover, higher population density in the cities means more efficient delivery of those services (i.e. more tax dollars per mile of roads, public transit, school, police precinct, etc.)
4. Social integration. Higher residential density and public spaces create more opportunities for interactgion between people of different social backgrounds, even if such interaction is often very superficial. OTOH, suburban sprawl is the epitome of seggregation and alienation.
What I do not understand about many Leftist is that they fail to distinguish between aesthetic/symbolic and social economic aspects of urban development. They hate social inequality, hence they hate people in high income groups and their culture and lifestyle, which by implication involves knee jer reaction against gentrification. That is a very naive, idealistic and utopian position. A more realistic one would be opposition to the core cause - i.e. social inequality, rather than its epiphenomena, such as yuppie life styles.
Poverty sucks - every aspect of it is absolutely reprehensible. To paraphrase the Old Man, the problem is not to valorize it culturally (e.g veneration of poverty-related subcultures, or the variety of noble savage mythologies ad nauseam reiterated by many leftists), but to change it. That means, making the life styles now enjoyed by the upper classes to everyone. In other words, making boutiques, art galleries, cafes, bookstores, theaters, symphony halls, condominiums, parks, spas, clean crime-free streets etc. available to the working class - not just the yuppies. That also means that instead of knee-jerk opposition of everything that smacks of gentrification - the Left should demand more gentrification that includes the working class, low and moderate income people.
If the city wants to build a high income condo project - that is fine (more tax revenues). Instead of opposing this project, the Left activists should use it as a platform to demand a second one - aimed at providing low and moderate income housing, preferably in the same area. If the city wants to bring in a Planet Hollywood of Hard Rock Cafe to the downtown area - that is fine. Again, the left should use it as a platform to match that development with one aimed at serving the working class - recreation centres, public libraries, parks, etc. Every "market rate" condo or apartment building should be linked to creating new affordable housing, and every Planet Hollywood should be contingent on opening a new community cultural or recreation center, every public dollar in suburban subsidies should be matched by equal amount given to the cities.
wojtek